Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1979, Side 123

109
with the words at deyia, 1. 16, concluding with hlvta, 1. 27. On page lv,
11. 23-24 in Dr Widding’s numeration are actually 11. 24-25, if one
includes the fragmentary top line in one's calculations of line numbcrs.
On page 2v, hånd B has written 11. 10-30, but hånd A has written the
last words of 1. 15 (Ju’iat \er munum fyr lit[in...]) and the end of 1. 30
(t>a er hann var a mi^re anæ )?a).
Beyond this one area of uncertainty should be noted, namely, the
point of transition between hånd A and hånd B in 1. 10, page 2v. The
first part of the line seems to have been written by A. The shapes of the ar
and the er abbreviations are characteristic of A, as are the letters v and r.
The first word that can with certainty be identified as written by B is
fariN. The intervening words, aull 6a, are blurred, which makes
identification difficult; also the use of initial d is unrecorded elsewhere in
the MS. The form of the cross stroke in this letter seems doser to that
used by hånd B (cf. hiedaN 2vl5) than that of A.
Accurate as is this specification of the points of transition between
hånds, it remains, I would contend, incomplete. And this for two
reasons: first and less importantly, because it ignores a change of hånds
at the beginning of 1. 19 and, second, because it fails to notice, as a
careful examination of the fragment must show, the existence of two
further hånds. Of these additional hånds, one, which I will call C, has
written 11. 19-23, p. lv, while the other, here named D, has written II. 24
and 25 of the same page. Now it is true that arguments from common
sense and economy require the postulation of the minimum number of
hånds that will successfully account for the differences of form and usage
in a MS. And MSS. are seldom completely consistent. A scribe’s style will
often change between the beginning and the end of a MS., or local
discrepancies may arise from differences in the thickness of the
parchment, and so on. It is hardly surprising, then, that the two
additional hånds should have escaped recognition in the earlier studies.
For one thing, neither scribe C nor scribe D contributed many lines to
the MS. For another, hånds C and D do rather resemble hånds A and B
respectively in their general appearance. One notes particularly such
details as the treatment of the tail of the g, which is important as an
obvious means of distinguishing A and B. But if the kinship of hånds A
and C and hånds B and D in regard to this detail be admitted, the subtle
differences, especially between A and C, should also be observed. In my
opinion the characteristics of script and orthography in the sections I